December 22, 2003 Subject:
Because this is 1965!
Am interesting touchy feely about what should be done to prevent pollution and urban sprawl. I'm not too sure if the methods presented here aren't just a little TOO obvious (eg, ignoring a city river? Build around the river and everything will look beautiful! Ugly poor housing? Make nicer looking poor housing!). Worth noting though, is the dynamite portrait of 1965 america, with it's storefronts and the delirious archecture going on. Well worth taking a look at, I thought I would be bored, but I am going to say now this is reccomended!
Reviewer:Steve Nordby -
August 27, 2003 Subject:
This urban rewenal promotion from the 1960's makes some good points about the ugliness of American cities, pollution, cheap development, and the unhealthy mix of pedestrian and car, yet it points to some ugly, monolith monstrosities of 1960's architecture as better. Disorder or design? Ugliness or beauty? Is it in the eye of the beholder, or is the film's sponsor (The American Institute of Architects) trying to cash in on the new 1960's federal goverenment urban renewal funds? Hard to tell.